5 ms·

Lovers of modern classical music have been trying to sell it to the mainstream for a century and failed. 100 years after Bach, Mozart, Beerhoven, Brahms, Saint-

Lovers of modern classical music have been trying to sell it to the mainstream for a century and failed. 100 years after Bach, Mozart, Beerhoven, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev and others wrote their seminal works, the audiences got them; in most cases they got them as soon as they came out or within a few years. Schoenberg and his followers are dancing to a different tune, and that’s fine for them, but at this point it’s pretty clear that they will at best be remembered for their tangential effects on composers of actually beloved music.

vonjuice 3y ago
Why does the mainstream get invoked in these types of arguments when no one called them? Who cares? There's hundreds upon hundreds of classical composers who didn't really survive into popularity who wrote standard good quality music for their time. Many people know of Haydn but who (who isn't a pianist) has ever heard of Kuhlau? Not to mention Bach had to regain popularity through Mendelsshon.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  > when no one called them? This is debatable to say the least. Lovers of the avant-garde commonly trot out the argument that there's just no room for genuine, transformative innovation within the mainstream that can be grokked by average folk, that it is played out in some sense. And lovers of mainstream music (and arguably mainstream culture more generally) routinely prove them wrong, by managing to innovate within those boundaries in a way that's genuinely compelling to many. It happens again and again.
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    Many times what happens is that the "within" innovation is not so much innovation in itself, but the innovation is including aspects that were done by the avant-garde decades before, into a popular context. avant-garde composers were playing with recording and editing techniques for a long time before the beatles came and used those ideas in a more catchy way, with a hairstyle to boot. The innovation is closer to the business side than to the music itself.
- afthonos 3y ago
  > Why does the mainstream get invoked in these types of arguments when no one called them? Oh, I must have gotten lost. I thought I was in a forum dedicated to hacking where a post had been submitted to justify the importance of a composer almost universally found difficult to listen to to a mainstream audience. Probably took a wrong turn somewhere. > Who cares? Whoever posted the story here clearly did one way or another. Everyone who commented, both of us included, as well. Affecting detachment while taking the time to clearly post how detached one is is not very convincing.
  - vonjuice 3y ago
    I think importance can be recognized without appealing to the average Bad Bunny listener. I care about the music, people should be more open to hearing challenging music. That doesn't necessarily mean "the mainstream", that entails a whole cabal of mechanisms at play that go beyond what an individual chooses to listen and how. Also many now revered composers were shunned by audiences of their time, such as Mahler. Bach is now regarded as the greatest composer but he wasn't exactly popular during his life outside select circles.

vonjuice 3y ago

Why does the mainstream get invoked in these types of arguments when no one called them? Who cares? There's hundreds upon hundreds of classical composers who didn't really survive into popularity who wrote standard good quality music for their time. Many people know of Haydn but who (who isn't a pianist) has ever heard of Kuhlau? Not to mention Bach had to regain popularity through Mendelsshon.

zozbot234 3y ago
> when no one called them? This is debatable to say the least. Lovers of the avant-garde commonly trot out the argument that there's just no room for genuine, transformative innovation within the mainstream that can be grokked by average folk, that it is played out in some sense. And lovers of mainstream music (and arguably mainstream culture more generally) routinely prove them wrong, by managing to innovate within those boundaries in a way that's genuinely compelling to many. It happens again and again.
- vonjuice 3y ago
  Many times what happens is that the "within" innovation is not so much innovation in itself, but the innovation is including aspects that were done by the avant-garde decades before, into a popular context. avant-garde composers were playing with recording and editing techniques for a long time before the beatles came and used those ideas in a more catchy way, with a hairstyle to boot. The innovation is closer to the business side than to the music itself.
afthonos 3y ago
> Why does the mainstream get invoked in these types of arguments when no one called them? Oh, I must have gotten lost. I thought I was in a forum dedicated to hacking where a post had been submitted to justify the importance of a composer almost universally found difficult to listen to to a mainstream audience. Probably took a wrong turn somewhere. > Who cares? Whoever posted the story here clearly did one way or another. Everyone who commented, both of us included, as well. Affecting detachment while taking the time to clearly post how detached one is is not very convincing.
- vonjuice 3y ago
  I think importance can be recognized without appealing to the average Bad Bunny listener. I care about the music, people should be more open to hearing challenging music. That doesn't necessarily mean "the mainstream", that entails a whole cabal of mechanisms at play that go beyond what an individual chooses to listen and how. Also many now revered composers were shunned by audiences of their time, such as Mahler. Bach is now regarded as the greatest composer but he wasn't exactly popular during his life outside select circles.